1986 PLP 598 (CLC)

‑‑‑S.24‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑Conduct of Election‑ Neglect of Presiding Officer to sign votes‑‑Legality of election‑‑Votes properly issued by polling staff‑‑No malpractice on part of either of rival candidates was alleged‑‑Twenty votes were rejected as Presiding Officer neglected to sign those votes and nineteen votes out of twenty were cast in favour of petitioner and only one in favour of returned candidate‑‑Rejection of such twenty votes due to fault of Presiding Officer when initial difference of poll between two rival candidates was only five, held, would materially affect result of election‑‑Presiding Officer could not have declared anyone of candidate as elected‑‑Election thus was declared void and fresh poll ordered in circumstances. A Syed Jamshed Ali for Petitioner. Mian Ghulam Rasool for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 17th November, 1985. MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, J.‑‑Hakim Ali petitioner and Muhammad Hayat respondent No.2 were the only candidates for election to a seat in Union Council Chak No.11/R.B., District Sheikhupura. The petitioner obtained 151 votes and Muhammad Hayat respondent No.2, 146 votes, but 19 votes cast in favour of the petitioner and one vote cast in favour of the respondent were excluded from the count as these votes did not bear the signatures of the Presiding Officer. After excluding these votes the Presiding Officer declared Muhammad Hayat respondent No.2 to have been elected with 145 valid votes against 132 valid votes. The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.2 in an election petition but it was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge sitting as an Election Tribunal, Sheikhupura on 20‑6‑1984. The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court raising the plea that the entire election was materially affected on account of the omission, on the part of the Presiding Officer to sign the 20 votes. He prays for a writ that fresh election be ordered to be held.

2. It is an admitted position of the parties that it was not a case of malpractice on the part of either of the rival candidates. The 20 votes; 19 cast in favour of the petitioner and one in favour of respondent No.2 did not carry the signatures of the Presiding Officer for no fault of either of the candidates but only because the Presiding Officer neglected to sign them. It is also an admitted position that the votes were properly issued by the polling staff and it is nobody's case that these 20 votes were bogus. Under these circumstances, the rejection of A these 20 votes when the initial difference of poll between the two candidates was only five would necessarily materially affect the result of the election. The Presiding Officer, therefore, could not have declared any one of the candidates to have been elected. It was clearly a case of fresh poll and we order accordingly. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. H . B . T . Constitutional petition allowed.